Apple's Leopard Will Exclude 800MHz G4 Processors 371
goombah99 writes "According to AppleInsider, Apple is about to announce that Leopard will not support 800 MHz G4 PowerPC processors. Previously developers had been told that it would require at least an 800 MHz G4. But AppleInsider alleges only 867 MHz G4s and higher will now be supported because of speed issues, and testers have been told that the new OS 'cannot be installed' on lesser machines. This cutoff in minimum requirements means that all those original iMac flat screens and Titanium PowerBooks are now forked to the Tiger (10.4) Update Path."
Bad Summary! Article doesn't say G5-only! (Score:5, Informative)
The article is specifically about 800MHz and slower G4s being excluded:
Nowhere does the article claim that Leopard will be G5 & Intel only.
Incorrect Summary (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, AppleInsider said that 800 MHz G4 processors may not be supported. 867 MHz or greater G4 processors would still be usable. From TFA:
OS 10.6, it is speculated, may not support PPC processors (so, we're talking 2009 here?)You need to read the article... (Score:2, Informative)
Instead, Leopard will now require Macs with "an Intel processor or a PowerPC G4 (867 MHz or faster) or G5 processor." Other system requirements include a DVD drive, built-in FireWire, at least 512MB of RAM (additional recommended), and at least 9GB of hard disk space.
So, instead of supporting 800 MHz and up, you now need 867 MHz and up.
RTFA! (Score:4, Informative)
The text in the article reads
Leopard will now require Macs with "an Intel processor or a PowerPC G4 (867 MHz or faster) or G5 processor." Other system requirements include a DVD drive, built-in FireWire, at least 512MB of RAM (additional recommended), and at least 9GB of hard disk space.
]{
ouch the summary was just false (Score:2, Informative)
Theory Versus Practice (Score:5, Informative)
There's a difference between stated requirements and what you can actually get to work. Users of the open-source XPostFacto [macsales.com] have known this for years. Can't run OS 10.3 on that old beige G3 tower? Sure you can! Maybe even 10.4.
Nonetheless, even 10.4.x is supported on the 400mhz PowerBook G3 (the version with a bronze keyboard and FireWire). It is not the speediest thing ever, but for email, Word/PowerPoint, and most web browsing, it's just fine. My main reason to consider replacing it: after seven years of use, the backlighting is starting to fade. But those dual battery bays are hard to give up.
Re:Incorrect Summary (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx [microsoft.com]
800MHz G4 IS SUPPORTED (Score:5, Informative)
Disable Dashboard (Score:3, Informative)
I have a dual-proc G5 machine and I disable Dashboard, just because I don't use the thing and have never found it really useful.
Re:4.7.1 was the good one, not 6.0.4 (Score:3, Informative)
Not everyone does nothing but share music all day... for me, the following features of iTunes 7 are easily more worthwhile than better sharing (since there is currently only one iTunes-capable computer on my network anyway):
- "Grouping" tag
- The extensive array of sorting tags
- Video handling features
- Podcast managing features
- Album (and, I suppose, the useless Cover Flow) view
- Additional smart playlist criteria
- and the big one: GAPLESS PLAYBACK. Did I say GAPLESS PLAYBACK? I hated iTunes until it had GAPLESS PLAYBACK.
I think it's a little misleading to make the blanket statement that 4.7.0 is better than all subsequent versions just because it doesn't have one little limitation that likely affects very few users besides college kids in dorms.
Re:Whoopee doo (Score:3, Informative)
Hint: alt-tab then you can run the mouse over the icons
Re:FireWire?! (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, that's what they're getting at. Basically, if you've got a G4 and it doesn't have Firewire, you're not going to be running Leopard.
Re:Does this also exclude upgraded Macs? (Score:3, Informative)
I have a DP800 Quicksilver with the same video RAM and HD specs you do.
I'm really wondering if my system will be left out - with the above upgrades, my system easily ran software requiring a faster machine (the COD2 United Offensive for example). Besides, a DP800 should outpace a SP867 machine. After all, it will be running more than one process.
On the other hand, my machine was purchased in Oct 2001. It's had a long, good life and needs to retire.
Re:Bad Summary! Article doesn't say G5-only! (Score:3, Informative)
When it was originally posted, the summary said AppleInsider was anticipating that they'd drop all G4 support. That's why there are about 20 comments -- including this quote from the article -- correcting it. (And why it's tagged with "badsummary")
I'm glad the editors fixed the summary, but it would have been nice if they'd made some note to that effect, instead of confusing even more people.
Re:How about a proper useable shell. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Money doesn't matter (Score:4, Informative)
I know I shouldn't respond to this anonymous troll, but...
With every $150 service pack released for OSX...
There have been eleven releases of OS X 10.4.x over the last couple years. Once you had 10.4 all those releases were free. These releases are roughly equivalent to a service pack, in Microsoft-speak. Service packs don't add features, do they? The major releases all add features. Granted many of them are new capabilities for developers to take advantage of, but there are usually enough immediate benefits for the end user to drive sales.
And by the way, if you're going to troll, at least get your facts straight. Major releases of 10.x are $129 for a single machine, and $199 for a family pack that covers five machines.
Easy to bypass (Score:2, Informative)
Re:and we get slower still (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How "big" is an OS X update anyway? (Score:4, Informative)
I'd guess about half of them do. Most of the other half stay up-to-date with the minor revisions (10.4.x) for free using Software Update.
Is "Leopard" more like a service pack or a whole new OS or somewhere in-between?
It's a "whole new OS" like Vista is a whole new OS relative to XP.
And what's the downside to not upgrading? Applications aren't tied to new OS X versions, are they?
Same as with Vista. You get various OS improvements, most are low level. Slowly apps will come out that require those features. Five years from now it'll be the minimum required version, etc...
-pmb
Re:Apple: RECONSIDER (Score:5, Informative)
Re:for Developers (Score:4, Informative)
I have a Macbook pro that runs VISTA just fine. However compared to Win2K or XP it is dog slow. It is totally unreasonable to expect to be able to run VISTA on even the fastest Pentium available in 2001. For most Mac users, 10.4.x will probably work for a while, just as XP will be running on most Windows users current hardware until the hardware dies. Even the newest computers have to work hard to run Windows VISTA. With nothing else running VISTA uses about 30% CPU cycles. XP uses only 10%, everything else the same.
Re:and we get slower still (Score:4, Informative)
They don't have enough RAM. If you do more than one thing at once Tiger will die with 512MB, while Panther has more room for error. If you have enough RAM to avoid swapping Tiger is snappier (once the Spotlight index is done and Dashboard is loaded).
Re:4.7.1 was the good one, not 6.0.4 (Score:3, Informative)
iqu